So McCarty, my supervisor @ Winterhaven, treasured faculty, talked me through a demo dowload of Squeak to the Toshiba, as kids were settling into their seats (projecter already running). Now I have it open in another tab, within FireFox. Let's go see if the plug-in actually works (didn't quite get to it, as class was starting).... Got a mouse-on-wheels, Loading Project... (I passed on getting updates this time)... OK, Teds Ocean comes up, I beckon my wife, and she comes over to watch. "What about the car?" That's what Tara's been up to, programming a car (one of the eToys exercises). We check another canned example: Stair. Quite fun then, not just an applet as plugin, but I guess the whole Squeak development environment, which is the 6.5 meg I downloaded. The browser simply wraps this deeper think tank with a friendly and familiar out frame, one which conveniently connects me to worlds I'll want to check out anyway. OK, so now that's on the Toshiba. Tara can show us about the car. And I can learn more about this teaching environment (I've been also looking at the books). Kirby
-----Original Message----- From: edu-sig-bounces@python.org [mailto:edu-sig-bounces@python.org] On Behalf Of kirby urner
OK, Teds Ocean comes up, I beckon my wife, and she comes over to watch. "What about the car?" That's what Tara's been up to, programming a car (one of the eToys exercises). We check another canned example: Stair.
Girl. Car. ?? Probably more fuel efficient, or something, than the kind of car a *boy* might be interested in ;)
Quite fun then, not just an applet as plugin, but I guess the whole Squeak development environment, which is the 6.5 meg I downloaded.
I think you owe it to yourself, and perhaps to us, to understand and express why Squeak does not represent the perfect environment for pursuing the kind of educational ideas that you tend to express. If it in fact does not. My own concerns start exactly there - with the word "environment". My understanding is that many conclude that too much "environment" is what doomed Smalltalk to a minor role in today's software world. And respect for children starts, I think, with not considering them any different from oneself on these kinds of issues. I am actually very disappointed that - according to what you are saying - Canonical sees Squeak as having a central role to play in education for children. Python is glue, a citizen of the larger software world, and proficiency in it helps make one a better, more productive and potentially creative citizen of the world. Squeak is too much its own world. If Canonical mission is to educate better world citizens, I think it is going off in the wrong direction here. Art
The browser simply wraps this deeper think tank with a friendly and familiar out frame, one which conveniently connects me to worlds I'll want to check out anyway.
OK, so now that's on the Toshiba. Tara can show us about the car. And I can learn more about this teaching environment (I've been also looking at the books).
Kirby _______________________________________________ Edu-sig mailing list Edu-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig
Arthur wrote:
My own concerns start exactly there - with the word "environment".
My understanding is that many conclude that too much "environment" is what doomed Smalltalk to a minor role in today's software world.
And respect for children starts, I think, with not considering them any different from oneself on these kinds of issues. I am actually very disappointed that - according to what you are saying - Canonical sees Squeak as having a central role to play in education for children.
Python is glue, a citizen of the larger software world, and proficiency in it helps make one a better, more productive and potentially creative citizen of the world. Squeak is too much its own world. If Canonical mission is to educate better world citizens, I think it is going off in the wrong direction here.
+1 ;) Vern -- This time for sure! -Bullwinkle J. Moose ----------------------------- Vern Ceder, Director of Technology Canterbury School, 3210 Smith Road, Ft Wayne, IN 46804 vceder@canterburyschool.org; 260-436-0746; FAX: 260-436-5137
On 3/10/06, Vern Ceder <vceder@canterburyschool.org> wrote:
Arthur wrote:
My own concerns start exactly there - with the word "environment".
My understanding is that many conclude that too much "environment" is what doomed Smalltalk to a minor role in today's software world.
And respect for children starts, I think, with not considering them any different from oneself on these kinds of issues. I am actually very disappointed that - according to what you are saying - Canonical sees Squeak as having a central role to play in education for children.
Python is glue, a citizen of the larger software world, and proficiency in it helps make one a better, more productive and potentially creative citizen of the world. Squeak is too much its own world. If Canonical mission is to educate better world citizens, I think it is going off in the wrong direction here.
+1 ;) +1 as well :-)
André
Vern --
On 3/10/06, Arthur <ajsiegel@optonline.net> wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: edu-sig-bounces@python.org [mailto:edu-sig-bounces@python.org] On Behalf Of kirby urner
OK, Teds Ocean comes up, I beckon my wife, and she comes over to watch. "What about the car?" That's what Tara's been up to, programming a car (one of the eToys exercises). We check another canned example: Stair.
Girl. Car. ??
Probably more fuel efficient, or something, than the kind of car a *boy* might be interested in ;)
As the only girl in shop class and electronics class etc, I would have *loved* to have a chance to build and program cars back then. My daughter does it now in school (Lego Mindstorms) and has a blast. Some of us, sometimes, just like to tinker. It's nice to see other girls out there with the same interests...
Quite fun then, not just an applet as plugin, but I guess the whole Squeak development environment, which is the 6.5 meg I downloaded.
I think you owe it to yourself, and perhaps to us, to understand and express why Squeak does not represent the perfect environment for pursuing the kind of educational ideas that you tend to express. If it in fact does not.
My own concerns start exactly there - with the word "environment".
My understanding is that many conclude that too much "environment" is what doomed Smalltalk to a minor role in today's software world.
And respect for children starts, I think, with not considering them any different from oneself on these kinds of issues. I am actually very disappointed that - according to what you are saying - Canonical sees Squeak as having a central role to play in education for children.
Python is glue, a citizen of the larger software world, and proficiency in it helps make one a better, more productive and potentially creative citizen of the world. Squeak is too much its own world. If Canonical mission is to educate better world citizens, I think it is going off in the wrong direction here.
Great point, Art. Anna
I think you owe it to yourself, and perhaps to us, to understand and express why Squeak does not represent the perfect environment for pursuing the kind of educational ideas that you tend to express. If it in fact does not.
In fact I'm better at using Python to express what I want to express, about mathematics. Hence my Pythonic Mathematics, my OSCON talks about it, my trip to Sweden to explain it and so forth. I was simply never was a SmallTalk guy, much though I treasure OO. What I see in Squeakland is a branch point to entirely other genres of experience, but with OO in common, plus a willingness to control puppets (assets I'm hoping to add, via Mono/.NET, to Python's capabilities -- "giving hands to the snake" we might call it (a metaphor for evolution, "snake" being the generic spinal chord in some readings)).
My own concerns start exactly there - with the word "environment".
My understanding is that many conclude that too much "environment" is what doomed Smalltalk to a minor role in today's software world.
Yes, there's lots to say about this (most of it not by me). In SmallTalk what you save is "the image" -- which is the world as you've massaged it and messaged it up until now. You pass whole worlds around, more than fragments thereof. Context becomes everything. And obviously, at some extreme, this becomes very impractical. Most of us evolve our "working environment" in our heads so to speak, crafting a personal and productive style, a mountain of habits, practices, familiar routines. But what we share with others is minus most of that, just a *piece* of the action. In Python, we ship modules or .py files. In Java, we ship beans (among other products). My guess is SmallTalk wizards long ago added the atomism people were missing, but by that time, the other language designers had already absorbed the OO paradigm, and were reimplementing it in C (to give us C++, Java, C#) and in Python. To barrel ahead in the commercial sector, people wanted something familiar. Back when OO got started, in like the 1960 and 70s, Smalltalk was way too Xerox Park, using odd-ball GUI and mouse ideas (expensive!) -- those would become standard on the PC only later, by way of the Mac.
And respect for children starts, I think, with not considering them any different from oneself on these kinds of issues. I am actually very disappointed that - according to what you are saying - Canonical sees Squeak as having a central role to play in education for children.
Think of it this way: You live in an environment (traffic, kitchen sink) and need to train your thinking from within the OO paradigm. "I am a factory" you say, dressing for work. Or "I am an Amtrak train, what are my properties and methods?" (shades of Walt Whitman). Then you go out there and live your life -- in Squeakland if you're a mouse in Alan Kay's mind. Or maybe this way: Play Uru for awhile, on a fast, solid, Windows computer (no, not an oxymoron, I'm tired of hearing that joke). Now *there's* an environment. Is it wrong to expose children to such art? Tara and I venture in Uru together, or she goes with her same-age friends. I bought it for her as a gift. In my scenario, in my lifestyle, a game like Uru has the status of a Mona Lisa or Rembrandt. It's only regional prejudice that people think anything named Cyan, in Spokane, Washington, could produce something as memorable. Now, am I saying the mostly flat Squeak environment is as surreal and immersive as Uru's.? Not exactly. But it gives you access to a wheelworks, the code piles, behind all this environmental interactivity. You see the tunnels under Disneyworld. So again this is a useful metaphor, as a kid grows up in a science, say a medical one.
Python is glue, a citizen of the larger software world, and proficiency in it helps make one a better, more productive and potentially creative citizen of the world. Squeak is too much its own world. If Canonical mission is to educate better world citizens, I think it is going off in the wrong direction here.
Art
Better ability to slip *between* worlds -- to hop on a jet in LA, to show up in Tokyo. I'm hoping to push cars to eat more vegetables (biodiesel) so we have more Arabica Gold left over for jets. I want kids to travel, Arabic speaking ones as much as any. Squeakers all. Squeakland typifies a genre of literature (I'll call it that) in which one becomes willfully lost in a vast matrix, the creation of other minds (we hope not too sick and twisted). More like reading a novel or watching science fiction or something. It's wonderful that we're able to build things like this. Another example: http://www.activeworlds.com/ Yes, *you* might hate such stuff, but we could *not* take all this away from children on general policy, once they've become addicted. There's simply too much precedent for healthy development in this direction, like in the form of fairy tales and mythology. Or see: http://www.cybergeography.org/atlas/muds_vw.html Kirby
kirby urner wrote:
Yes, *you* might hate such stuff, but we could *not* take all this away from children on general policy, once they've become addicted. There's simply too much precedent for healthy development in this direction, like in the form of fairy tales and mythology.
Tsunamis, addictions - I sometimes think your choice of words are more appropriate than you want them to be ;). To some extent the most practical thinking is yes, we have jaded children's sensitivities - as well as our own. Work within it. *We* don't understand much about the tools on which we are dependent, have given up trying, nobody seems to attach much importance to it - so we can't expect more from our children. Get lost in the magic. Go with it. We turn on the television and pictures appear and we are lost in the pictures - the magic that is beyond our understanding or interest on what is making them appear is suitably left as magic. *That's* the fallacy that's going to bring us down, IMO. Guess I prefer the voice of the prophet over that of the visionary. . Got to read more from my friend Kay yesterday - by accident. Fun book: What We Believe But Cannot Prove - Todays Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainly. Edited by John Brockman Maybe 100 scientists in diverse fields get between a few paragraphs and a few pages to express something related, or unrelated, to their own field of specialty that represents what they consider to be true , but (currently) unprovably so. The only computer scientist so far encountered is Kay. No surprises - in the course of a few paragraphs he quotes Einstein, Knuth, and McCluhan and other peers (we fill in our own wink number here) - does his printing press thing - and expresses his guess -that he admits he has been married to for a long time - that "people who learn to think" in the new way represented by computers will be "qualitatively different thinkers", "and this will (usually) advance our limited conception of civilization". And the funny thing is I don't really disagree with him. Except that I would express it a little differently - believing that the most profound thing that computers will do for us is teach us what computers cannot do for us. And I do think that is a profound lesson. Just a little impatient with the process, is all. Art
We turn on the television and pictures appear and we are lost in the pictures - the magic that is beyond our understanding or interest on what is making them appear is suitably left as magic. *That's* the fallacy that's going to bring us down, IMO.
Yes, and I think Squeakland helps fight that "take it all for granted" mentality. Because you're in a cartoon-like space, and it it's *up to you* to make stuff happen (your the TV *producer* not just the potato).
And the funny thing is I don't really disagree with him. Except that I would express it a little differently - believing that the most profound thing that computers will do for us is teach us what computers cannot do for us. And I do think that is a profound lesson.
Yes. Wittgenstein took the same approach to logic: yes it's true, but so is 0 = 0.
Just a little impatient with the process, is all.
Art
We get, and will get, both these types of children: Type: Excellent in a virtual jungle game, with avatar Tarzan or companion Jane, or maybe as some Tombraider chick. Admired for skills, a celebrity in the urban bazaar, where the technology is taken for granted, virtual reality accepted ("the reality of court life"). Type: A real Tarzan or Jane, a virtuoso of real jungles -- has no use for computers in big sky country, outside the DVD teepee. Maybe sleeps in a hammock, suffers no star-stealing "light pollution" (the nearest big city is far away). Kirby
kirby urner wrote:
Type:
A real Tarzan or Jane, a virtuoso of real jungles -- has no use for computers in big sky country, outside the DVD teepee. Maybe sleeps in a hammock, suffers no star-stealing "light pollution" (the nearest big city is far away).
Can we get them elected to something, perhaps. Funny thing: The one thing the conservatives and liberals seemed to have agreed about recently is that a mathematician does not belong on the Supreme Court. I was excited to learn that Harriet Myers' undergraduate degree was in mathematics. I thought there was hope there, for a minute. ;) Art
kirby urner wrote:
We turn on the television and pictures appear and we are lost in the pictures - the magic that is beyond our understanding or interest on what is making them appear is suitably left as magic. *That's* the fallacy that's going to bring us down, IMO.
Yes, and I think Squeakland helps fight that "take it all for granted" mentality. Because you're in a cartoon-like space, and it it's *up to you* to make stuff happen (your the TV *producer* not just the potato).
Please Kirby, I am talking physics, not cartoons. And as much as I admire Mr. J. Moose - I try not to confuse the two things.
And the funny thing is I don't really disagree with him. Except that I would express it a little differently - believing that the most profound thing that computers will do for us is teach us what computers cannot do for us. And I do think that is a profound lesson.
Yes. Wittgenstein took the same approach to logic: yes it's true, but so is 0 = 0.
Not sure what you mean. If I sound like I am talking sematically, I certainly don't mean to be. I am thinking literally and in terms of practicalities, even if I am not successful in expressing it as such. We count the roses in Shakespeares. Know the exact number. Now what? Wittgenstein played a major role in the book I just finished. "The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Godel" by Rebecca Goldstein. Goldstein is a novelist with a heavy weight philosophy background. Godel and Wittgenstein were not on contemporaries, but moved in the same circles for a good part of these lives - The Vienna Circle. Goldstein does a brilliant job of describing the nature of the problem they had with each other. And yes it is wonderful to have a brilliant woman's perspective here. Also no question that Einstein and Godel were peers - just by the fact they chose to spend so much of their timing hanging out with each other. We all need folks to chat with ;) Art Art
Please Kirby, I am talking physics, not cartoons. And as much as I admire Mr. J. Moose - I try not to confuse the two things.
Awwwww, you're no fun. [Roger Rabbit voice]
Yes. Wittgenstein took the same approach to logic: yes it's true, but so is 0 = 0.
Not sure what you mean. If I sound like I am talking sematically, I certainly don't mean to be. I am thinking literally and in terms of practicalities, even if I am not successful in expressing it as such.
We count the roses in Shakespeares. Know the exact number. Now what?
That's some Old Europe stereotype of a computer. All these threatened school dons, in front of a chalkboard, worried some big metal box down the hall will put them out of a job. Update: I want to make TV = I want to learn multi-track editing = I need a computer = if I learn to program, I'll be able to make even *better* TV -> [back to start of loop]
"The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Godel" by Rebecca Goldstein.
At least not the one where Witttgenstein gets menacing next to the fireplace. Popperians read that like a ghost story, scare themselves, whisper about "mean old LW" to their children -- a boogey man.
circles for a good part of these lives - The Vienna Circle. Goldstein
Yeah, LW was born into money. Was living a glam life as a courtly genius, then gave it all up to go to Oxford, to leave the ordinary world of Muggles and their ways and join up with Slytherin, headed by Bertrand Russell. His Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus (known as TLP by insiders) was his young knight-in-shining-armour debut (the women back in Vienna swooned), then he exited stage right and wasn't heard from in awhile. Then he returned (surprise!), this time to teach his Philosophical Investigations, his mysterious PI -- a dark art, with LW a hooded figure, all Darth Vadery and Jedi, with a penchant light sabers (er fire pokers).
Also no question that Einstein and Godel were peers - just by the fact they chose to spend so much of their timing hanging out with each other. We all need folks to chat with ;)
Art
Yeah, Princeton. Those were the days. Now they point to Fine Hall and say Einstein worked in Fine Hall, but maybe neglect to tell you Fine Hall moved to Fine Tower since Einstein's day, next to Jadwin. When I was on campus, Einstein's office was part of Near Eastern Studies or something. Anyway, I think Princeton is one of the few Ivy League schools to do math in a skyscraper (albeit not a very tall one -- tall enough). True story: at least one of my friends got help with calculus from that beautiful mind guy (this was pre the Nobel). Nash'd materialize in the corridor, wearing sneakers of two colors, and flutter over to some wide-eyed scholar, living a dream. Anyway, he new everything about calculus reportedly, and much else besides. Kirby
kirby urner wrote:
Please Kirby, I am talking physics, not cartoons. And as much as I admire Mr. J. Moose - I try not to confuse the two things.
Awwwww, you're no fun. [Roger Rabbit voice]
Yes. Wittgenstein took the same approach to logic: yes it's true, but so is 0 = 0.
Not sure what you mean. If I sound like I am talking sematically, I certainly don't mean to be. I am thinking literally and in terms of practicalities, even if I am not successful in expressing it as such.
We count the roses in Shakespeares. Know the exact number. Now what?
That's some Old Europe stereotype of a computer. All these threatened school dons, in front of a chalkboard, worried some big metal box down the hall will put them out of a job.
Please. It's a simplification, yes. But absent some Kayian, intelligent agent, computer-human mind meld process, I don't think it is qualitatively wrong. And, scientifically, I am at the moment very much absent the mind-meld unit. What I think is true, but cannot prove, is that nothing will change about that, qualitatively - ever. And what's worse for your side: I have said to myself for some time that if I ever got the credit card swiped the right way around at the checkout *the first time*, I would begin to take myself more seriously. Just went to the supermarket to pick up a few things. And guess what I did... Art
Update: I want to make TV = I want to learn multi-track editing = I need a computer = if I learn to program, I'll be able to make even *better* TV -> [back to start of loop]
"The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Godel" by Rebecca Goldstein.
At least not the one where Witttgenstein gets menacing next to the fireplace. Popperians read that like a ghost story, scare themselves, whisper about "mean old LW" to their children -- a boogey man.
circles for a good part of these lives - The Vienna Circle. Goldstein
Yeah, LW was born into money. Was living a glam life as a courtly genius, then gave it all up to go to Oxford, to leave the ordinary world of Muggles and their ways and join up with Slytherin, headed by Bertrand Russell. His Tractatus-Logico-Philosophicus (known as TLP by insiders) was his young knight-in-shining-armour debut (the women back in Vienna swooned), then he exited stage right and wasn't heard from in awhile. Then he returned (surprise!), this time to teach his Philosophical Investigations, his mysterious PI -- a dark art, with LW a hooded figure, all Darth Vadery and Jedi, with a penchant light sabers (er fire pokers).
Also no question that Einstein and Godel were peers - just by the fact they chose to spend so much of their timing hanging out with each other. We all need folks to chat with ;)
Art
Yeah, Princeton. Those were the days. Now they point to Fine Hall and say Einstein worked in Fine Hall, but maybe neglect to tell you Fine Hall moved to Fine Tower since Einstein's day, next to Jadwin. When I was on campus, Einstein's office was part of Near Eastern Studies or something.
Anyway, I think Princeton is one of the few Ivy League schools to do math in a skyscraper (albeit not a very tall one -- tall enough).
True story: at least one of my friends got help with calculus from that beautiful mind guy (this was pre the Nobel). Nash'd materialize in the corridor, wearing sneakers of two colors, and flutter over to some wide-eyed scholar, living a dream. Anyway, he new everything about calculus reportedly, and much else besides.
Kirby
kirby urner wrote:
I think you owe it to yourself, and perhaps to us, to understand and express why Squeak does not represent the perfect environment for pursuing the kind of educational ideas that you tend to express. If it in fact does not.... My own concerns start exactly there - with the word "environment".
My understanding is that many conclude that too much "environment" is what doomed Smalltalk to a minor role in today's software world.
Yes, there's lots to say about this (most of it not by me). In SmallTalk what you save is "the image" -- which is the world as you've massaged it and messaged it up until now. You pass whole worlds around, more than fragments thereof. Context becomes everything.
This is both the strength and weakness of Smalltalk: Then environment is a single, learnable model. You can look into the guts and see how it works. Yo can change the way the system works and see the effects of the change. This is gold for the tinkerers among us. What techie-kid has not wanted to take things apart and see how they work with a bit of a twist? It becomes hard to build separate things that work well with anybody's hallucination of what the core is. This is a problem with Lisp and Ruby systems as well. The other problem is the "one world model" which Smalltalk shares with Lisp, APL, and Prolog (and many others).
My guess is SmallTalk wizards long ago added the atomism people were missing, but by that time, the other language designers had already absorbed the OO paradigm, and were reimplementing it in C (to give us C++, Java, C#) and in Python.
But many shared Smalltalk things involve mucking with the core objects: "This is my nifty whizz-bang: just add these methods to 'object' and then you'll find that ...." -- Scott David Daniels Scott.Daniels@Acm.Org
participants (6)
-
Andre Roberge -
Anna Ravenscroft -
Arthur -
kirby urner -
Scott David Daniels -
Vern Ceder